incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] [VOTE] Apache Lucy 0.1.0-incubating release candidate #1
Date Sat, 21 May 2011 01:43:43 GMT
RM docs are always guides, not decrees, but Marvin is
certainly within his rights to vote according to the
current docs.  Keep in mind noone gets to veto a release
(unless it's on legal grounds, and those should be rare).

FWIW, I think the full 3-part version string belongs
in the package name, while the 2-part version string
belongs in the branch, as that is the point of creating
the branch in the first place- so you can cut maintainence
releases from it that are just patch-level changes.  Unfortunately
CPAN won't be very happy about it, but it's a manageable
problem.

The tag issue for rc's I am ambivalent about personally.

But basically I agree with the existing Lucy docs.  In the interest
of time, since I know you don't have much more you can spare
on this effort, I suggest you try to just follow them as-is.
And lets keep the initial voting confined to dev@lucy as
Marvin suggests.



----- Original Message ----
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc: "lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org" <lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org>; 
>"lucy-user@incubator.apache.org" <lucy-user@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 9:30:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] [VOTE] Apache Lucy 0.1.0-incubating release candidate 
>#1
> 
> Hi Marvin,
> 
> On May 20, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> 
> > Hi, Chris, thanks for expediting.
> > 
> > On Fri,  May 20, 2011 at 02:18:37PM -0700, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~mattmann/apache-lucy-0.1-incubating/rc1/
> > 
> > The artifacts here do not follow the version naming convention that is  used 
>by
> > the source code of X.Y.Z, and that the ReleaseGuide specifies  the artifacts
> > should use:
> > 
> >     apache-lucy-0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz   //  actual name
> >     apache-lucy-incubating-X.Y.Z.tar.gz     //  documented in  ReleaseGuide.
> 
> Hmmm....Sorry but this is the first time I've carefully  looked at the 
>ReleaseGuide, otherwise if I saw it back when you threw it up on  the wiki, I'd 
>probably have debated this convention for *artifact names* (note  this an 
>important distinction -- I'm not debating the programmatic use of  version #s as 
>is covered below). Most of the Apache releases I've seen use  *artifact names*  
>likes:
> 
> apache-<product>-<version>-<src|bin>.<ext>
> 
> In  this case, we're the lucy product, version 0.1-incubating, it's a src 
>release,  and it's a tar.gz extension.
> 
> I think that makes more sense  than:
> 
> apache-<product>-incubating-<version>.<ext>
> 
> > 
> > It's essential that our artifacts match the actual version number  strings.
> 
> Who are you talking about when you say "our"? I am included in  that set? If 
>so, I'm not necessarily on board with your proposal for what the  *artfiact 
>name* should be. Note that the discussion we had on your referenced  thread 
>below is actually talking about programmatic uses of a string/int/number  
>version within the context of PL-specific forges like CPAN/Maven  
>Central/PyPI/etc. It's not talking about artifact names.
> 
> > This was  hammered out over a long thread here: <http://s.apache.org/lW>.
> > 
> > The branch we will use for bugfixes is also misnamed:
> > 
> >    // Actual name
> >    
>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucy/branches/apache-lucy-0.1-incubating/
>
> >     // Documented in ReleaseGuide
> >    https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucy/branches/X.Y
> 
> Gotcha.  I transposed the branch and tag names.
> 
> Speaking of which though, let me  also poke at this. Having 2 conventions for 
>tags and branches seems odd to me  and it seems like the introduction of 
>pointless complexity for little gain. Why  not just pick one:
> 
> either:
> 
> apache-lucy-X.Y (e.g.,  apache-lucy-0.1-incubating)
> 
> or:
> 
> X.Y (e.g.,  0.1-incubating)
> 
> Having 2 conventions for branches and tags seems odd to  me. 
> 
> > 
> > And there is no tag for the RC as the instructions set  out:
> > 
> >    
>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucy/tags/apache-lucy-incubating-X.Y.Z-rcN
>
> 
> IMO  and experience, tags are created when a release VOTE passes to capture a  
>*final* snapshot of the release that's not expected to change. Some other  
>projects use tags as the first release VOTE'ing artifact, and then roll a branch  
>when the VOTE passes to indicate further development in a series. Either way is  
>fine. I'm happy to create the tag, but honestly, this approach seems like an RM  
>decision to me and something that we should leave open to the guy picking up a  
>shovel and doing the RM'ing.
> 
> > 
> > I regret that I must vote  -1.  Please change the name of the tag, following
> > the documentation  in the ReleaseGuide precisely and reroll.  If you 
disagree
> > with  anything you encounter, please raise your concern on the dev list.
> 
> No  probs. Concerns raised above. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris  Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory  Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW:     http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct  Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern  California, Los Angeles, CA 90089  USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message